Sheriff’s Office Appeal Brief Filed, Calls $15M Verdict “Off the Rails” – “Runaway Jury Verdict”

TALLAHASSEE – More than a year after a jury awarded Sgt. Kevin Davis $15 million in a high-profile discrimination and retaliation civil lawsuit, the Alachua County Sheriff’s Office is now asking an appellate court to overturn or significantly reduce the verdict, arguing it was driven by improper evidence, flawed legal theories, and damages far exceeding what the law allows.

In a detailed initial brief filed March 27, 2026, with Florida’s First District Court of Appeal, attorneys for Sheriff Chad Scott described the case in blunt terms, calling it “the archetype for one that was allowed to go off the rails at nearly every step of the way.”

The filing follows failed settlement negotiations earlier this year and comes more than a year after the Feb. 7, 2025 jury verdict. Under appellate rules, Davis now has 30 days to file an answer brief responding to the Sheriff’s arguments.

Multiple Grounds for Appeal

The Sheriff’s appeal raises several independent bases for reversal.

At the outset, the brief argues the verdict was not supported by legally sufficient evidence and that the trial court should have entered judgment in favor of the Sheriff or, at minimum, ordered a new trial. It also argues that the evidence did not support the jury’s decision.

The appeal also challenges key evidentiary rulings, asserting that the jury was exposed to irrelevant and highly prejudicial information that distorted its evaluation of the case.

In addition, the Sheriff’s Office argues the damages awarded, particularly the $15 million in non-economic damages, were “astronomically excessive” and far outside the range supported by comparable cases.

Finally, the brief raises a critical issue under federal law. Because Davis sued the Sheriff in his official capacity, he was required under the U.S. Supreme Court’s Monell doctrine to prove that any alleged discrimination or retaliation resulted from an official policy or custom. According to the Sheriff, the jury was never instructed to make that finding, and the verdict form did not include it.

The brief also argues Davis gave up his federal civil rights claim by not asking the judge to properly instruct the jury on what had to be proven, meaning there was no valid legal basis for awarding damages under that claim.

Promotion Claim Under Scrutiny

A central component of Davis’s retaliation and discrimination claims involved his contention that he was repeatedly passed over for promotion due to race.

The Sheriff’s brief directly challenges that narrative. According to the filing, Davis, who is white, was not promoted in seven separate instances. Of those promotions, six went to white candidates and only one to a black candidate.

The brief also emphasizes that other candidates who were promoted took steps Davis refused to take, including accepting invitations to meet with the Sheriff or Undersheriff so leadership could evaluate them personally. Some candidates were already known to leadership through community or professional connections.

Davis, by contrast, declined those opportunities, reportedly characterizing them as “kissing the ring.”

The Sheriff argues that refusal undercuts any claim that the promotional decisions were based on unlawful discrimination rather than legitimate evaluation of candidates.

Damages Dispute Takes Center Stage

A major focus of the appeal is the size of the damages award compared to the evidence presented.

Davis’s $15 million recovery is based almost entirely on emotional distress tied to a 19-week administrative suspension. However, the Sheriff’s Office emphasizes that Davis remained fully employed, received full pay and benefits, and was never demoted.

The brief also highlights the absence of any medical or psychological evidence. Davis presented no medical records, therapy records, expert testimony, or diagnosis to support claims of lasting emotional harm.

Instead, the Sheriff characterizes the claim as “garden variety” emotional distress, a category federal and Florida courts have consistently treated as warranting far smaller awards.

The appeal cites a substantial body of federal and Florida case law showing that, in the absence of medical evidence, non-economic damages are routinely reduced to amounts ranging from approximately $5,000 to $30,000. Jury awards above six-figures are considered excessive under those circumstances presented in Davis’s case.

By contrast, the jury’s award in this case was orders of magnitude larger. The jury initially awarded $115,724 in back pay, but that amount was reduced to $16,457 after the court removed improperly included future wages. The remaining $15 million in non-economic damages is now more than 911 times the proven economic loss.

According to the Sheriff’s brief, that disparity demonstrates a verdict driven by emotion rather than evidence, stating that the record “indicates that the jury wished to punish ACSO — not fairly compensate Davis.”

The appeal also points out that both federal and Florida law impose statutory caps on damages recoverable against government entities. The Sheriff argues that those limits further underscore how far the jury’s award deviates from what the law permits.

FDLE Investigation Draws Scrutiny

The appeal also takes aim at the role of a Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) criminal investigation that was repeatedly referenced during trial.

That investigation was initiated at the request of Davis’s attorney, Bobi J. Frank, on the same day the civil lawsuit was filed. Frank also represented multiple witnesses who participated in the FDLE investigation and later testified in the civil case.

The Sheriff’s brief argues the investigation “became a feature of the trial,” creating the impression of criminal wrongdoing within the Sheriff’s Office.

However, the jury was not presented with the outcome of that investigation because it was not concluded until weeks after the civil case concluded. On Feb. 19, 2025, the Third Judicial Circuit State Attorney declined to bring charges, finding insufficient evidence to support allegations against then Sheriff Watson or his administration.

Further, ACSO attorneys argue that they could not adequately cross-examine witnesses regarding the FDLE investigation when they were not aware of what the allegations were. However, Attorney Frank and her witnesses were aware, because Frank filed the complaint with FDLE and hosted a great many of FDLE’s interviews with her several clients who also served as witnesses at the civil trial.

Notably, the brief highlights that the only individual identified as potentially committing a criminal act was former Captain Brandon Kutner, one of the FDLE witnesses and a client of Frank, who had been granted immunity before giving statements.

The Sheriff argues that introducing the investigation without that context allowed the jury to draw improper inferences and contributed to what it describes as an “inflamed and misleading” presentation of the case.

What became clear about the FDLE investigation is that it had no relationship to Davis’s retaliation and discrimination civil lawsuit raising questions as to any legitimate purpose for introducing it to the jury.

What Comes Next

With the initial brief now filed, the appeal will proceed through briefing and potential oral argument before the First District Court of Appeal.

Davis has 30 days to respond, after which the court will determine whether to uphold the verdict, reduce the damages, or order a new trial.

For now, the $15 million judgment remains in place. But more than a year after the jury’s decision, the Sheriff’s Office is pressing forward with a sweeping challenge aimed not only at the size of the award, but at the legal foundation of the verdict itself.

#    #    #

Email editor@

alachuatoday.com